1. Technical Field
The present invention pertains to firearm training systems, such as those disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/486,342, entitled “Network-Linked Laser Target Firearm Training System” and filed Feb. 25, 2000; Ser. No. 09/761,102, entitled “Firearm Simulation and Gaming System and Method for Operatively Interconnecting a Firearm Peripheral to a Computer System” and filed Jan. 16, 2001; Ser. No. 09/760,610, entitled “Laser Transmitter Assembly Configured For Placement Within a Firing Chamber and Method of Simulating Firearm Operation” and filed Jan. 16, 2001; Ser. No. 09/760,611, entitled “Firearm Laser Training System and Method Employing Modified Blank Cartridges for Simulating Operation of a Firearm” and filed Jan. 16, 2001; Ser. No. 09/761,170, entitled “Firearm Laser Training System and Kit Including a Target Having Sections of Varying Reflectivity for Visually Indicating Simulated Projectile Impact Locations” and filed Jan. 16, 2001; and Ser. No. 09/862,187, entitled “Firearm Laser Training System and Method Employing an Actuable Target Assembly” and filed May 21, 2001. The disclosures of the above-mentioned patent applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. In particular, the present invention pertains to a firearm laser training system that accommodates various targets for facilitating a variety of firearm training activities.
2. Discussion of the Related Art
Firearms are utilized for a variety of purposes, such as hunting, sporting competition, law enforcement and military operations. The inherent danger associated with firearms necessitates training and practice in order to minimize the risk of injury. However, special facilities are required to facilitate practice of handling and shooting the firearm. These special facilities tend to provide a sufficiently sized area for firearm training and/or confine projectiles propelled from the firearm within a prescribed space, thereby preventing harm to the surrounding environment. Accordingly, firearm trainees are required to travel to the special facilities in order to participate in a training session, while the training sessions themselves may become quite expensive since each session requires new ammunition for practicing handling and shooting of the firearm.
In addition, firearm training is generally conducted by several organizations (e.g., military, law enforcement, firing ranges or clubs, etc.). Each of these organizations may have specific techniques or manners in which to conduct firearm training and/or qualify trainees. Accordingly, these organizations tend to utilize different types of targets, or may utilize a common target, but with different scoring criteria. Further, different targets may be employed by users for firearm training or qualification to simulate particular conditions or provide a specific type of training (e.g., grouping shots, hunting, clay pigeons, etc.).
The related art has attempted to overcome the above-mentioned problems by utilizing laser or light energy with firearms to simulate firearm operation and indicate simulated projectile impact locations on targets. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,164,081 (Berke) discloses a marksman training system including a translucent diffuser target screen adapted for producing a bright spot on the rear surface of the target screen in response to receiving a laser light beam from a laser rifle on the target screen front surface. A television camera scans the rear side of the target screen and provides a composite signal representing the position of the light spot on the target screen rear surface. The composite signal is decomposed into X and Y Cartesian component signals and a video signal by a conventional television signal processor. The X and Y signals are processed and converted to a pair of proportional analog voltage signals. A target recorder reads out the pair of analog voltage signals as a point, the location of which is comparable to the location on the target screen that was hit by the laser beam.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,281,142 (Zaenglein, Jr.) discloses a shooting simulation training device including a target projector for projecting a target image in motion across a screen, a weapon having a light projector for projecting a spot of light on the screen, a television camera and a microprocessor. An internal device lens projects the spot onto a small internal device screen that is scanned by the camera. The microprocessor receives various information to determine the location of the spot of light with respect to the target image.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,366,229 (Suzuki) discloses a shooting game machine including a projector for projecting a video image that includes a target onto a screen. A player may fire a laser gun to emit a light beam toward the target on the screen. A video camera photographs the screen and provides a picture signal to coordinate computing means for computing the X and Y coordinates of the beam point on the screen.
International Publication No. WO 92/08093 (Kunnecke et al.) discloses a small arms target practice monitoring system including a weapon, a target, a light-beam projector mounted on the weapon and sighted to point at the target and a processor. An evaluating unit is connected to the camera to determine the coordinates of the spot of light on the target. A processor is connected to the evaluating unit and receives the coordinate information. The processor further displays the spot on a target image on a display screen.
The systems described above suffer from several disadvantages. In particular, the Berke, Zaenglein, Jr. and Suzuki systems employ particular targets or target scenarios, thereby limiting the types of firearm training activities and simulated conditions provided by those systems. Further, the Berke system utilizes both front and rear target surfaces during operation. Thus, placement of the target is restricted to areas having sufficient space for exposure of those surfaces to a user and the system. The Zaenglein, Jr. and Suzuki systems employ a video projector, a video camera and associated components for operation, thereby increasing system complexity and costs. In addition, the Berke and Kunnecke et al. systems merely display impact locations to a user, thereby requiring a user to interpret the display to assess user performance during an activity. The assessment is typically limited to the information provided on the display, thereby restricting feedback of valuable training information to the user and limiting the training potential of the system.